RDNH Finding in IndoorBillboard.com UDRP

A UDRP was filed against the domain investor-owned IndoorBillboard.com domain name at the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). The decision was published today, and the domain registrant prevailed and will retain this generic domain name. The three member panel discussed Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH), and it ruled this was an abusive filing. The domain registrant was represented by Jason Schaeffer of ESQWire.com.

The complainant in this filing is a company called Indoor Billboard/Northwest, Inc. It argued that it has a trademark for the “indoor billboard” term and that it “received notoriety” for the term. The panel felt that the complainant did not offer up any evidence to that effect:

“In that connection, while Complainant alleges notoriety in its INDOOR BILLBOARD name, Complainant proffers no evidence to demonstrate any reputation at all in this name either a decade ago or currently. “

In addition to this, the panel felt the respondent provided enough evidence to show that the term is generic, and the domain registrant acquired the domain name because of its generic nature rather than becauase of the complainant’s trademark branding:

“Respondent, by contrast, provides sufficient evidence to allow the Panel to find that Respondent registered the domain name for its inherent value as a descriptive term.

By way of example, Respondent makes clear that its business involves the acquisition of domain names that may have inherent value because of their generic meaning (including solarbatteries.com, culturaldiversity.com, thrillrides.com, dinnershow.com, debtservices.com, electionlaw.com, learnhindi.com and others).

It has also demonstrated that “INDOOR BILLBOARDS” is used by a number of businesses and industry organizations to describe a specific type of advertising.

Therefore, there is no evidence of bad faith use and/or registration.”

This was enough to fend off the UDRP, and the respondent also requested that the panel rule on RDNH. The panel ruled it was RDNH for several reasons:

“It is clear to the Panel that Complainant has, despite having the benefit of counsel, pursued its case a) without any supporting evidence in respect of Respondent’s rights/legitimate interest, and b) without any supporting evidence in respect of Respondent’s alleged bad faith, and importantly c) by making assertions that appear to be inaccurate in a way that, unchecked by the Respondent, could have given Complainant an unfair advantage in respect of the outcome of the proceedings.”

Elliot Silver
Elliot Silver
About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of DomainInvesting.com. Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has closed eight figures in deals. Please read the DomainInvesting.com Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest. Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Recent Posts

Poll: Are You Going to ICANN 79?

The ICANN 79 Community Forum Meeting is coming up in a couple of weeks. The meeting will be held in Puerto Rico from March...

Domain Broker’s Ad Campaign Highlighted by X Business with a Repost from Elon Musk

When looking at domain investor Twitter, I've noticed a few promoted/advertising tweets mentioning Rob Schutz and/or Snagged.com. I recently wrote about Rob and his...

NameJet Announces Platform Enhancements

Last Summer, NameJet made some "big changes" to its platform. In essence, NameJet appears to have become a clone of Snapnames, its sister auction...

Rationale Behind CoFounders.com Acquisition

It's not often that we hear from the founders of a company to discuss why they spent what they did to acquire a specific...

.Bet Domain Name Acquired for 5 Figures, Reportedly Resold for $600k

According to a tweet from Identity Digital (formerly Donuts), the Bet.bet domain name reportedly sold for $600,000. I have not verified or researched the...